Interpretations B and C both focus on the role of propaganda during the First World War.
How far do they differ and what might explain any differences?
Interpretation B
An extract from a book on propaganda and lies. It was published in 1928 and called ‘Falsehood in War-Time’. It was written by Arthur Ponsonby, a British pacifist MP who opposed British involvement in the war.
This is a book about how lies are used in war-time. If the truth were told from the start there would be no desire for war.
There was more deliberate lying in Britain from 1914 to 1918 than in any other period of history. This book has been written as a warning. Governments always resort to lying in order to justify their wars. They depict the enemy as criminals, they exaggerate victories, and they conceal defeats. They try to inflame people’s emotions to gain recruits for the war. The public can be worked up until a collective hysteria spreads and rises.
The British official propaganda department was highly successful. With eavesdroppers, letter-openers, spies, a forgery department, a propaganda department, a censorship department, and a Press bureau, the government was well equipped to ‘inform’ the people.
Interpretation C
An extract from an interview with historian Adrian Gregory. It was broadcast on a 2014 podcast called ‘The Great War of Words’.
I shared all of the usual assumptions about British propaganda of the First World War, believing it was pages and pages of stories about babies and nuns being attacked, and that somebody was just simply making all this stuff up. I was therefore a little bit surprised when I went back to the press of 1914 and found that most of the actual content was very different. The press reporting is mainly just that – reporting. Yes, it’s often flawed and biased reporting, but nonetheless, there are journalists and editors who are trying to tell the story about what is actually going on. They are not usually trying to mislead or mobilise the civilian population.